Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 2006 / Proposed Rules 56085 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

43 CFR Part 3900 

[WO–3201310–PP–OSHL] 

RIN 1004–AD90 

Commercial Oil Shale Leasing 

Program 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of reopening of public 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) is reopening and 

extending by 30 days, the public 

comment period for the Advance Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 25, 2006 (71 FR 50378). The 

ANPR requested comments and 

suggestions to assist in the writing of a 

proposed rule to establish a commercial 

leasing program for oil shale. In order to 

provide the public with additional time 

to prepare and submit comments, the 

BLM is extending the comment period 

30 days from the original comment 

period closing date of September 25, 

2006. The comment period is extended 

to October 25, 2006. 

DATES: We will accept comments and 

suggestions on the ANPR until October 

25, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Commenters may mail 

written comments to the Bureau of Land 

Management, Administrative Record, 

Room 401LS, 1849 C Street, NW, 

Washington, DC 20240; or hand-deliver 

written comments to the Bureau of Land 

Management, Administrative Record, 

Room 401, 1620 L Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20036. Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. E-mail: 

Comments_washington@blm.gov. 

(Include ‘‘Attn: 1004–AD90’’) 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information on the substance of the 

Advance Notice, please contact Ted 

Murphy at (202) 452–0350. For 

information on procedural matters, 

please contact Kelly Odom at (202) 452–

5028. Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–

8339, to contact the above individuals 

during business hours. FIRS is available 

twenty-four hours a day, seven days a 

week. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The BLM 

published the ANPR on August 25, 2006 

(71 FR 50378), and provided a 30-day 

comment period that will end on 

September 25, 2006. We are extending 

the comment period on the ANPR until 

October 25, 2006. The comment period 

is being extended in order to provide 

additional time for the public to prepare 

and submit comments on the 

commercial oil shale leasing program 

that the BLM is developing. 

As stated in the August 25, 2006, 

ANPR, the BLM is particularly 

interested in receiving comments on the 

following questions relating to 

regulations it is developing for an oil 

shale commercial leasing program: 

1. What should be the royalty rate and 

point of royalty determination? 

2. Should the regulations establish a 

process for bid adequacy evaluation, 

i.e., Fair Market Value determination, or 

should the regulations establish a 

minimum acceptable lease bonus bid? 

3. How should diligent development 

be determined? 

4. What should be the minimum 

production requirement? 

5. Should there be provisions for 

small tract leasing? 

The BLM is also interested in 

receiving any other comments regarding 

content and structure of the oil shale 

leasing program. 

Dated: September 19, 2006. 

Chad Calvert, 

Acting Assistant Secretary, Land and 

Minerals Management. 

[FR Doc. 06–8198 Filed 9–25–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–84–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AU45 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for Astragalus ampullarioides 

(Shivwits Milk-Vetch) and Astragalus 

holmgreniorum (Holmgren Milk-Vetch) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Revised proposed rule; 

reopening of public comment period, 

notice of availability of draft economic 

analysis and draft environmental 

assessment, and revisions to proposed 

critical habitat boundaries. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

reopening of the public comment period 

on the proposal to designate critical 

habitat for Astragalus ampullarioides 

(Shivwits milk-vetch) and Astragalus 

holmgreniorum (Holmgren milk-vetch) 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (Act). We also 

announce the availability of the draft 

economic analysis for the proposed 

designation of critical habitat for 

Holmgren and Shivwits milk-vetches. 

The draft economic analysis finds that, 

over 20 years, post-designation costs for 

Holmgren and Shivwits milk-vetch 

conservation-related activities are 

estimated to range between $8.8 and 

$14.1 million in undiscounted 2006 

dollars. In discounted terms, potential 

post-designation economic costs are 

estimated to be $8.5 to $13.0 million 

(using a 3 percent discount rate) or $8.2 

to $12.1 million (using a 7 percent 

discount rate). In addition, we announce 

the availability of a draft environmental 

assessment that has been prepared in 

accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) (NEPA). Finally, we 

propose to revise boundary descriptions 

for two critical habitat subunits: 

Holmgren milk-vetch’s Unit 2a (Stucki 

Spring) and Unit 2b (South Hills). 

DATES: We will accept comments until 

October 26, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment on 

the proposed rule, draft economic 

analysis, or draft environmental 

assessment, you may submit your 

comments and materials to us by any 

one of the following methods: 

(1) E-mail: You may send comments 

by electronic mail (e-mail) to 

hsmilkvetch@fws.gov. Please see Public 

Comments Solicited section below for 

file format and other information about 

electronic filing. 

(2) Fax: You may fax comments to 

(801) 975–3331. 

(3) Mail or hand delivery/courier: You 

may submit written comments to Larry 

Crist, Acting Field Supervisor, Utah 

Ecological Services Field Office, 2369 

West Orton Circle, Suite 50, West Valley 

City, Utah 84119. 

(4) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Larry Crist, Acting Field Supervisor, 

Utah Ecological Services Field Office, at 

the address listed in ADDRESSES

(telephone, 801–975–3330; facsimile, 

801–975–3331). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments Solicited 

We will accept written comments and 

information during this reopened 

comment period. We solicit comments 

or suggestions from the public, other 

concerned governmental agencies, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 

other interested party concerning the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
56086 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

original proposed rule published in the 

Federal Register on March 29, 2006 (71 

FR 15966), revisions to the proposed 

rule described in this document, the 

draft economic analysis, and the draft 

environmental assessment. In addition 

to the points listed in the March 29, 

2006, proposed rule, we particularly 

seek comments concerning: 

(1) The reasons any habitat should or 

should not be determined to be critical 

habitat as provided by section 4 of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 

including whether it is prudent to 

designate critical habitat; 

(2) Specific information on the 

distribution of the Holmgren and 

Shivwits milk-vetches, the amount and 

distribution of the species’ habitat, and 

which habitat contains the necessary 

features (primary constituent elements) 

essential to the conservation of these 

species and why; 

(3) Land-use designations and current 

or planned activities in the subject area 

and their possible impacts on these 

species or proposed critical habitat; 

(4) Whether our approach to critical 

habitat designation could be improved 

or modified in any way to provide for 

greater public participation and 

understanding, or to assist us in 

accommodating public concerns and 

comments; 

(5) Any foreseeable environmental 

impacts directly or indirectly resulting 

from the proposed designation of 

critical habitat; 

(6) Any foreseeable economic, 

national security or other potential 

impacts resulting from the proposed 

designation of critical habitat, and in 

particular, any impacts on small entities 

or families; 

(7) Whether the economic analysis 

identifies all State and local costs 

attributable to the proposed critical 

habitat, and information on any costs 

that have been inadvertently 

overlooked; 

(8) Whether the economic analysis 

makes appropriate assumptions 

regarding current practices and likely 

regulatory changes imposed as a result 

of the designation of critical habitat; 

(9) Whether the economic analysis 

correctly assesses the effect on regional 

costs associated with land-use controls 

that derive from the designation; 

(10) Whether the critical habitat 

designation will result in 

disproportionate economic impacts to 

specific areas that should be evaluated 

for possible exclusion from the final 

designation; 

(11) Whether the economic analysis 

appropriately identifies all costs that 

could result from the critical habitat 

designation; and 

(12) Whether the benefit of exclusion 

in any particular area outweighs the 

benefits of inclusion under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act. 

Comments previously submitted on 

the March 29, 2006, proposed rule (71 

FR 15966) need not be resubmitted as 

they have been incorporated into the 

record and will be fully considered in 

preparation of the final rule. If you wish 

to comment, you may submit your 

comments and materials concerning this 

proposal by any one of several methods 

(see ADDRESSES). Our final designation 

of critical habitat for the Holmgren and 

Shivwits milk-vetches will take into 

consideration all comments and any 

additional information received during 

both comment periods. Based on public 

comment on the proposed rule, the draft 

economic analysis, and the draft 

environmental assessment, as well as on 

the conclusions of the final economic 

analysis and environmental assessment, 

we may find during the development of 

our final determination that some areas 

proposed do not contain the features 

that are essential to the conservation of 

the species, are appropriate for 

exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act, or are not appropriate for 

exclusion. 

Please submit electronic comments in 

ASCII file format and avoid the use of 

special characters or any form of 

encryption. Please also include ‘‘Attn: 

RIN 1018–AU45’’ in the subject line, 

and your name and return address in 

the body of your message. If you do not 

receive a confirmation from the system 

that we have received your Internet 

message, please contact the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Our practice is to make comments, 

including names and home addresses of 

respondents, available for public review 

during regular business hours. We will 

not consider anonymous comments, and 

we will make all comments available for 

public inspection in their entirety. 

Comments and materials received will 

be available for public inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at the Utah Ecological Services 

Field Office at the address listed under 

ADDRESSES. 

You may obtain copies of the 

proposed rule, draft economic analysis, 

and draft environmental assessment by 

mail from the Utah Ecological Services 

Field Office at the address listed under 

ADDRESSES or by visiting our Web site at 

http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/ 

plants/milkvetche/index.htm. 

Background 

Holmgren and Shivwits milk-vetches 

are members of the pea family 

(Fabaceae or Leguminosae). Holmgren 

milk-vetch is a stemless, herbaceous 

(non-woody) perennial that produces 

leaves and small purple flowers in the 

spring. Shivwits milk-vetch is a 

perennial, herbaceous plant with yellow 

to cream-colored flowers that is 

considered a tall member of the pea 

family. Holmgren milk-vetch is known 

from Mohave County, Arizona, and 

Washington County, Utah. Shivwits 

milk-vetch is known only from 

Washington County in Utah. Threats to 

both species that resulted in their listing 

on September 28, 2001 (66 FR 49560), 

include development of land for 

residential and urban use, habitat 

modification from human disturbances 

such as off-road vehicle use, 

competition with nonnative plant 

species, and impacts from mining and 

grazing. 

On March 29, 2006, we proposed to 

designate approximately 2,421 acres (ac) 

(980 hectares (ha)) of critical habitat for 

Shivwits milk-vetch, and 6,475 ac 

(2,620 ha) of critical habitat for 

Holmgren milk-vetch, which include 

known occupied sites and associated 

habitats containing the identified 

primary constituent elements (71 FR 

15966). The proposed designation 

includes Federal, State, Tribal, and 

private lands in Arizona and Utah. On 

August 1, 2006, the Service announced 

the availability of a draft recovery plan 

for the two species (71 FR 43514). The 

recovery plan identifies the areas 

important for recovery; these areas 

correspond to those we have proposed 

as critical habitat. 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as the specific areas within 

the geographical area occupied by a 

species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species and that may require special 

management considerations or 

protection, and specific areas outside 

the geographical area occupied by a 

species at the time it is listed, upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. If the proposed rule is made 

final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat by any activity funded, 

authorized, or carried out by any 

Federal agency. Federal agencies 

proposing actions affecting areas 

designated as critical habitat must 

consult with us on the effects of their 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 2006 / Proposed Rules 56087 

proposed actions, under section 7(a)(2) 

of the Act. 

Draft Economic Analysis 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that 

we designate or revise critical habitat 

based upon the best scientific data 

available, after taking into consideration 

the economic impact, impact on 

national security, or any other relevant 

impact of specifying any particular area 

as critical habitat. In compliance with 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we have 

prepared a draft economic analysis of 

the March 29, 2006 (71 FR 15966), 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for Holmgren and Shivwits milkvetches. 

The draft economic analysis considers 

the potential economic effects of actions 

relating to the conservation of the two 

milk-vetches, including costs associated 

with sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act, 

and including those attributable to 

designating critical habitat. It further 

considers the economic effects of 

protective measures taken as a result of 

other Federal, State, and local laws that 

aid habitat conservation for the two 

milk-vetches in essential habitat areas. 

The draft economic analysis considers 

both economic efficiency and 

distributional effects. In the case of 

habitat conservation, efficiency effects 

generally reflect the ‘‘opportunity costs’’

associated with the commitment of 

resources to comply with habitat 

protection measures (e.g., lost economic 

opportunities associated with 

restrictions on land use). 

The draft economic analysis also 

addresses how potential economic 

impacts are likely to be distributed, 

including an assessment of any local or 

regional impacts of habitat conservation 

and the potential effects of conservation 

activities on small entities and the 

energy industry. This information can 

be used by decision-makers to assess 

whether the effects of the designation 

might unduly burden a particular group 

or economic sector. Finally, the draft 

economic analysis looks retrospectively 

at costs that have been incurred since 

the date the two milk-vetches were 

listed in 2001, and considers those costs 

that may occur in the 20 years following 

a designation of critical habitat. 

Pre-designation (2001–2006) costs 

associated with species conservation 

activities are estimated to range from 

$9.3 to $13.7 million in 2006 dollars. 

Potential post-designation (2007–2026) 

costs are estimated to range between 

$8.8 and $14.1 million in undiscounted 

2006 dollars. In discounted terms, 

potential post-designation economic 

costs are estimated to be $8.5 to $13.0 

million (using a 3 percent discount rate) 

and $8.2 to $12.1 million (using a 7 

percent discount rate). In annualized 

terms, potential post-designation costs 

are expected to range from $0.6 to $0.9 

million annually (annualized at 3 

percent) and $0.9 to $1.1 million 

annually (annualized at 7 percent). 

We solicit data and comments from 

the public on the draft economic 

analysis, as well as on all aspects of the 

proposal to designate critical habitat. 

We may revise the proposal, or its 

supporting documents, to incorporate or 

address new information received 

during the comment period. In 

particular, we may exclude an area from 

critical habitat if we determine that the 

benefits of excluding the area outweigh 

the benefits of including the area as 

critical habitat, provided such exclusion 

will not result in the extinction of the 

species. 

Draft Environmental Assessment; 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The draft environmental assessment 

(EA) presents the purpose of and need 

for critical habitat designation, the 

Proposed Action and alternatives, and 

an evaluation of the direct, indirect, and 

cumulative effects of the alternatives 

pursuant to the requirements of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) (NEPA) as 

implemented by the Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations (40 

CFR 1500 et seq.) and according to the 

Department of the Interior’s NEPA 

procedures. 

The EA will be used by the Service to 

decide whether or not critical habitat 

will be designated as proposed, if the 

Proposed Action requires refinement, or 

if further analyses are needed through 

preparation of an environmental impact 

statement (EIS). If the Proposed Action 

is selected as described, or with 

minimal changes, and no further 

environmental analyses are needed, 

then a Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) would be the appropriate 

conclusion of this process. 

Proposed Change to Boundaries of 

Holmgren Milk-Vetch Units 2a and 2b 

Following publication of the proposed 

critical habitat rule on March 29, 2006, 

we received updated information from 

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 

St. George Field Office, St. George, Utah 

on plant habitat and occupancy. Based 

on this information, we propose to 

amend the boundaries of two subunits 

for the Holmgren milk-vetch within 

Unit 2 (Santa Clara): Unit 2a (Stucki 

Spring) and Unit 2b (South Hills). 

Corrected maps and boundary 

descriptions are provided in the 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

section below. 

We propose changes to Unit 2a 

(Stucki Springs) and Unit 2b (South 

Hills) based on 2006 field survey results 

and comments contributed by BLM. 

Field reconnaissance in 2006 by BLM 

resulted in adjustment of boundaries to 

better include Holmgren milk-vetch 

habitat. Specific changes to Unit 2a 

(Stucki Springs) include: (1) Extension 

of the boundary to the north and west 

that results in the inclusion of an 

additional 139 ac (56.3 ha); and (2) 

retraction of the boundary on the south 

and southeast that results in the 

deletion of 114 ac (46.2 ha). The 

adjustment to the north and west further 

captures watershed and some of the 

formation contributing to the occupancy 

of Holmgren milk-vetch, and better 

reflects recent surveyed habitat and 

occupancy. The retraction to the south 

and southeast excludes habitat that is 

not occupied by Holmgren milk-vetch. 

Boundary adjustments for Unit 2a 

(Stucki Springs) result in an increase of 

proposed critical habitat in this subunits 

from approximately 412 ac (168 ha) to 

437 ac (177 ha). 

Specific changes to Unit 2b (South 

Hills) include: (1) The addition of 7 ac 

(2.8 ha) to the northeast portion of the 

subunit to include drainage patterns 

from the ridgeline and slope of the 

adjacent formation; (2) the deletion of 

17 ac (6.9 ha) to the southeast to correct 

a mapping error that proposed critical 

habitat outside the area known to be 

occupied by the taxon; and (3) the 

realignment of the western boundary 

100 feet (30 meters) to the east for 

management purposes. Boundary 

adjustments for Unit 2b (South Hills) 

result in a decrease of proposed critical 

habitat in this subunit from 

approximately 147 ac (59 ha) to 129 ac 

(52 ha). 

Overall, therefore, the total proposed 

critical habitat for the two milk-vetches 

would be increased by only 8 ac (3.3 ha) 

as a result of these proposed changes to 

the boundaries of Holmgren milk-vetch 

Units 2a and 2b. 

Future Boundary Changes 

Manmade features within the 

boundaries of proposed designated, 

mapped units, such as buildings, roads, 

parking lots, and other paved areas, do 

not contain any of the primary 

constituent elements for Holmgren and 

Shivwits milk-vetches and are not 

considered critical habitat. Additional 

efforts will be made to remove these 

areas in the final critical habitat 

designation for Holmgren and Shivwits 

milk-vetches. However, any such 

structures and the land under them 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
56088 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

inadvertently left inside critical habitat 

boundaries have been excluded by text 

and are not designated as critical 

habitat. 

Required Determinations—Amended 

In our March 29, 2006, proposed rule 

(71 FR 15966), we indicated that we 

would be deferring our determination of 

compliance with several statutes and 

Executive Orders until the information 

concerning potential economic impacts 

of the designation and potential effects 

on landowners and stakeholders was 

available in the draft economic analysis. 

Those data are now available for our use 

in making these determinations. In this 

notice we are affirming the information 

contained in the proposed rule 

concerning Executive Orders 13132 and 

Executive Order 12988; the Paperwork 

Reduction Act; and the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951). Based on 

the information made available to us in 

the draft economic analysis, we are 

amending our Required Determinations, 

as provided below, concerning 

Executive Order 12866 and the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act; Executive 

Order 13211, Executive Order 12630; 

and the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act. We are also complying with NEPA 

by preparation of a draft environmental 

assessment of the critical habitat 

proposal. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12866, this document is a significant 

rule because it may raise legal and 

policy issues. Based on our draft 

economic analysis, potential postdesignation (2007–2026) costs are 

estimated to range between $8.8 and 

$14.1 million in undiscounted 2006 

dollars. In discounted terms, potential 

economic costs are estimated to be $8.5 

to $13.0 million (using a 3 percent 

discount rate) and $8.2 to $12.1 million 

(using a 7 percent discount rate). In 

annualized terms, potential costs are 

expected to range from $0.6 to $0.9 

million annually (annualized at 3 

percent) and $0.9 to $1.1 million 

annually (annualized at 7 percent). 

Therefore, we do not believe that the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for the Holmgren and Shivwits milkvetches would result in an annual effect 

on the economy of $100 million or more 

or affect the economy in a material way. 

Due to the timeline for publication in 

the Federal Register, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has not 

formally reviewed the proposed rule or 

accompanying economic analysis. 

Further, Executive Order 12866 

directs Federal Agencies promulgating 

regulations to evaluate regulatory 

alternatives (OMB, Circular A–4, 

September 17, 2003). Under Circular A–

4, once it has been determined that the 

Federal regulatory action is appropriate, 

the agency will need to consider 

alternative regulatory approaches. 

Because the determination of critical 

habitat is a statutory requirement under 

the Act, we must then evaluate 

alternative regulatory approaches, 

where feasible, when promulgating a 

designation of critical habitat. 

In developing our designations of 

critical habitat, we consider economic 

impacts, impacts to national security, 

and other relevant impacts under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Based on the 

discretion allowable under this 

provision, we may exclude any 

particular area from the designation of 

critical habitat, provided that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying the area as critical 

habitat and that such exclusion would 

not result in the extinction of the 

species. As such, we believe that the 

evaluation of the inclusion or exclusion 

of particular areas, or combination 

thereof, in a designation constitutes our 

regulatory alternative analysis. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq. ) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 

802(2)) (SBREFA), whenever an agency 

is required to publish a notice of 

rulemaking for any proposed or final 

rule, it must prepare and make available 

for public comment a regulatory 

flexibility analysis that describes the 

effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., 

small businesses, small organizations, 

and small government jurisdictions). 

However, no regulatory flexibility 

analysis is required if the head of an 

agency certifies the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Based upon our draft economic analysis 

of the proposed designation, we provide 

our analysis for determining whether 

the proposed rule would result in a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This determination is subject to revision 

based on comments received as part of 

the final rulemaking. 

According to the Small Business 

Administration (SBA), small entities 

include small organizations, such as 

independent nonprofit organizations 

and small governmental jurisdictions, 

including school boards and city and 

town governments that serve fewer than 

50,000 residents, as well as small 

businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small 

businesses include manufacturing and 

mining concerns with fewer than 500 

employees, wholesale trade entities 

with fewer than 100 employees, retail 

and service businesses with less than $5 

million in annual sales, general and 

heavy construction businesses with less 

than $27.5 million in annual business, 

special trade contractors doing less than 

$11.5 million in annual business, and 

agricultural businesses with annual 

sales less than $750,000. To determine 

if potential economic impacts to these 

small entities are significant, we 

considered the types of activities that 

might trigger regulatory impacts under 

this designation as well as types of 

project modifications that may result. In 

general, the term significant economic 

impact is meant to apply to a typical 

small business firm’s business 

operations. 

To determine if the proposed 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Holmgren and Shivwits milk-vetches 

would affect a substantial number of 

small entities, we considered the 

number of small entities affected within 

particular types of economic activities 

(e.g., housing development, livestock 

grazing, residential and related 

development, recreation activities, 

mining, and transportation). We 

considered each industry or category 

individually to determine if certification 

is appropriate. In estimating the 

numbers of small entities potentially 

affected, we also considered whether 

their activities have any Federal 

involvement. Some kinds of activities 

are unlikely to have any Federal 

involvement and so will not be affected 

by the designation of critical habitat. 

Designation of critical habitat only 

affects activities conducted, funded, 

permitted, or authorized by Federal 

agencies; non-Federal activities are not 

affected by the designation. 

If the proposed critical habitat 

designation is made final, Federal 

agencies must consult with us if their 

activities may affect designated critical 

habitat. Consultations to avoid the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat would be incorporated 

into the existing consultation process. 

Our draft economic analysis of the 

proposed critical habitat designation 

evaluated the potential economic effects 

on small business entities and small 

governments resulting from 

conservation actions related to the 

listing of these species and proposed 

designation of their critical habitat. The 

activities affected by Holmgren and 

Shivwits milk-vetches’ conservation 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 2006 / Proposed Rules 56089 

efforts may include land development, 

transportation and utility operations, 

and conservation on public and tribal 

lands. More than 98 percent of the 

prospective economic costs (based on 

upper-bound future undiscounted cost 

figures) associated with conservation 

activities for Holmgren and Shivwits 

milk-vetches are expected to be borne 

by Federal agencies (primarily BLM) 

and state departments of transportation. 

Thus, impacts to land development (i.e., 

BLM land disposal) and transportation 

and utilities operations (i.e., Western 

and Southern Corridor projects) are not 

expected to affect small entities. The 

following is a summary of the 

information contained in the draft 

economic analysis: 

(a) Development 

According to the draft economic 

analysis, Holmgren and Shivwits milkvetches’ development-related losses 

account for approximately 71 percent of 

forecast costs, and range from $7.2 to 

$10.0 million (in 2006 dollars) over 20 

years. The costs consist of losses in 

Federal land value resulting from the 

removal of BLM-administered public 

lands from disposal status, meaning the 

lands cannot be sold or exchanged for 

private use. The only clearly directly 

affected entity is the BLM, a large 

government agency. Federal 

governments are not defined as small 

entities by the Small Business 

Administration. As a result of this 

information, we have determined that 

the proposed designation is not 

anticipated to have a substantial effect 

on a substantial number of small 

development businesses. 

(b) Transportation and Utility 

Operations 

Potential costs to transportation and 

utility operations in habitat proposed 

for designation account for another 25 

percent of forecast costs. Undiscounted 

costs are estimated to range between 

$1.0 and $3.5 million (in 2006 dollars) 

over 20 years, or $0.8 to $2.5 million 

assuming a 3 percent discount rate and 

$0.6 to $1.7 million assuming a 7 

percent discount rate. The amounts are 

driven by project modification costs 

associated with the Southern and 

Western Corridor transportation 

projects. These projects comprise more 

than 95 percent of the transportation 

and utility-related costs. These costs are 

expected to be borne by state 

departments of transportation. State 

governments are not defined as small 

entities by the Small Business 

Administration. As a result of this 

information, we have determined that 

the proposed designation is not 

anticipated to have a substantial effect 

on a substantial number of 

transportation and utility businesses. 

Costs associated with utilities (power 

lines) as a result of species conservation 

activities is expected to be minimal, 

with total pre-designation (2001–2006) 

costs estimated around $3,000 (in 2006 

dollars). No post-designation costs 

(2007–2026) are anticipated, since no 

foreseeable project is located within the 

proposed critical habitat area. 

(c) Conservation on Public and Tribal 

Lands 

Future costs associated with 

managing critical habitat on public and 

tribal lands account for an additional 

three percent of forecast costs. 

Undiscounted costs are estimated at 

approximately $0.5 million (in 2006 

dollars) over 20 years, or $0.4 million 

assuming a 3 percent discount rate and 

$0.3 million assuming a 7 percent 

discount rate. The costs primarily 

consist of ecological studies and habitat 

monitoring by BLM and the United 

States Geological Survey. These 

activities constitute over 95 percent of 

the conservation activities on public 

and tribal lands. 

In summary, three subunits (State 

Line, South Hills, and Stucki Springs) 

for Holmgren milk-vetch account for 

more than 95 percent of total 

undiscounted costs. We have 

considered whether this proposed rule 

would result in a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities, and we have concluded that it 

would not. Federal agencies (primarily 

BLM) and State Departments of 

Transportation account for 

approximately 74 and 25 percent of total 

undiscounted costs, respectively. 

Executive Order 13211—Energy 

Supply, Distribution, and Use 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

E.O. 13211 on regulations that 

significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 

requires agencies to prepare Statements 

of Energy Effects when undertaking 

certain actions. This proposed rule is 

considered a significant regulatory 

action under E.O. 12866 due to potential 

novel legal and policy issues, but it is 

not expected to significantly affect 

energy supplies, distribution, or use. 

Appendix A of the draft economic 

analysis provides a discussion and 

analysis of this determination. OMB has 

provided guidance for implementing 

this Executive Order that outlines nine 

outcomes that may constitute ‘‘a 

significant adverse effect’’ when 

compared to the situation without any 

regulatory action being taken. The draft 

economic analysis finds that none of 

these criteria are relevant to this 

analysis (no foreseeable utility project is 

located within the proposed critical 

habitat area). Thus, no energy-related 

impacts associated with Holmgren and 

Shivwits milk-vetches’ conservation 

activities within proposed critical 

habitat are expected. As such, the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

is not expected to significantly affect 

energy supplies, distribution, or use and 

a Statement of Energy Effects is not 

required. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501), 

the Service makes the following 

findings: 

(a) This rule will not produce a 

Federal mandate. In general, a Federal 

mandate is a provision in legislation, 

statute, or regulation that would impose 

an enforceable duty upon State, local, or 

tribal governments, or the private sector, 

and includes both ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandates’’ and 

‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’

These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 

658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or tribal 

governments,’’ with the following two 

exceptions: It excludes ‘‘a condition of 

federal assistance’’ and ‘‘a duty arising 

from participation in a voluntary 

Federal program,’’ unless the regulation 

‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal 

program under which $500,000,000 or 

more is provided annually to State, 

local, and tribal governments under 

entitlement authority,’’ if the provision 

would ‘‘increase the stringency of 

conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps 

upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding’’ and the State, local, or tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; AFDC work programs; Child 

Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services 

Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation 

State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption 

Assistance, and Independent Living; 

Family Support Welfare Services; and 

Child Support Enforcement. ‘‘Federal 

private sector mandate’’ includes a 

regulation that ‘‘would impose an 

enforceable duty upon the private 

sector, except (i) a condition of Federal 

assistance; or (ii) a duty arising from 

participation in a voluntary Federal 

program.’’

The designation of critical habitat 

does not impose a legally binding duty 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
56090 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

on non-Federal Government entities or 

private parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions do not 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat under section 7. Non-Federal 

entities that receive Federal funding, 

assistance, or permits, or that otherwise 

require approval or authorization from a 

Federal agency for an action, may be 

indirectly impacted by the designation 

of critical habitat. However, the legally 

binding duty to avoid destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat 

rests squarely on the Federal agency. 

Furthermore, to the extent that nonFederal entities are indirectly impacted 

because they receive Federal assistance 

or participate in a voluntary Federal aid 

program, the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act would not apply; nor would 

critical habitat shift the costs of the large 

entitlement programs listed above on to 

State governments. 

(b) The draft economic analysis 

discusses potential impacts of critical 

habitat designation for the Holmgren 

and Shivwits milk-vetches on land 

development, transportation and utility 

operations, and conservation on public 

and tribal lands. The analysis estimates 

that costs of the rule could range from 

$8.8 million to $14.1 million in 

undiscounted dollars over 20 years. 

Ninety-nine percent of the impacts are 

anticipated to affect Federal agencies 

(primarily BLM) and State Departments 

of Transportation. Impacts on small 

governments are not anticipated, or they 

are anticipated to be passed through to 

consumers. Consequently, we do not 

believe that the designation of critical 

habitat for the Holmgren and Shivwits 

milk-vetches will significantly or 

uniquely affect small government 

entities. As such, a Small Government 

Agency Plan is not required. 

Executive Order 12630—Takings 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12630 (‘‘Government Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Private Property Rights’’), we 

have analyzed the potential takings 

implications of proposing critical 

habitat for the Holmgren and Shivwits 

milk-vetches in a takings implications 

assessment. The takings implications 

assessment concludes that this proposed 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Holmgren and Shivwits milk-vetches 

does not pose significant takings 

implications. 

Author 

The primary authors of this notice are 

the staff of the Utah Ecological Services 

Field Office (see ADDRESSES section). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. 

2. Critical habitat for the Holmgren 

milk-vetch (Astragalus holmgreniorum) 

and Shivwits milk-vetch (Astragalus 

ampullarioides) in § 17.96(a), which 

was proposed to be added on March 29, 

2006, at 71 FR 15966, is proposed to be 

amended by revising the index map and 

two of the critical habitat unit 

descriptions for Holmgren milk-vetch as 

follows: 

§ 17.96 Critical habitat—plants. 

(a) Flowering plants. 

* * * * * 

Family Fabaceae: Astragalus 

holmgreniorum (Holmgren Milk-vetch). 

* * * * * 

(5) Note: Index map (Map 5) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 2006 / Proposed Rules 56091 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP26se06.004</GPH>
56092 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

* * * * * 

(7) Unit 2—Santa Clara Unit: 

Washington County, Utah. This Unit 

consists of two subunits: Stucki Spring 

and South Hills. 

(i) Unit 2a: Stucki Spring, Washington 

County, Utah. Land bounded by the 

UTM Zone 12 NAD 83 coordinates 

(meters E, meters N): 263203, 4109419; 

261650, 4109466; 261683, 4110718; 

262761, 4110687; 263214, 4109938; 

263203, 4109419. 

(ii) Unit 2b: South Hills, Washington 

County, Utah. Land bounded by the 

UTM Zone 12 NAD 83 coordinates 

(meters E, meters N): 263385, 4112054; 

263932, 4112044; 263975, 4111990; 

264261, 4111983; 263824, 4111209; 

263504, 4111208; 263503, 4111213; 

263502, 4111218; 263501, 4111220; 

263498, 4111226; 263494, 4111234; 

263489, 4111239; 263485, 4111243; 

263481, 4111246; 263476, 4111248; 

263475, 4111249; 263463, 4111252; 

263462, 4111253; 263456, 4111254; 

263454, 4111259; 263453, 4111262; 

263447, 4111274; 263443, 4111280; 

263427, 4111298; 263427, 4111298; 

263418, 4111308; 263413, 4111323; 

263409, 4111337; 263406, 4111354; 

263406, 4111366; 263406, 4111383; 

263406, 4111386; 263405, 4111403; 

263405, 4111407; 263402, 4111422; 

263400, 4111427; 263396, 4111440; 

263394, 4111449; 263395, 4111455; 

263397, 4111460; 263400, 4111464; 

263405, 4111473; 263406, 4111478; 

263407, 4111479; 263408, 4111493; 

263408, 4111503; 263406, 4111515; 

263405, 4111516; 263403, 4111529; 

263402, 4111534; 263407, 4111547; 

263409, 4111553; 263411, 4111568; 

263412, 4111572; 263413, 4111592; 

263412, 4111597; 263411, 4111609; 

263409, 4111615; 263407, 4111620; 

263405, 4111624; 263399, 4111631; 

263398, 4111634; 263397, 4111644; 

263401, 4111660; 263408, 4111679; 

263421, 4111711; 263422, 4111714; 

263429, 4111738; 263430, 4111746; 

263431, 4111767; 263431, 4111772; 

263428, 4111792; 263428, 4111822; 

263430, 4111853; 263429, 4111860; 

263428, 4111865; 263428, 4111866; 

263420, 4111884; 263419, 4111888; 

263421, 4111904; 263421, 4111913; 

263417, 4111935; 263416, 4111937; 

263405, 4111976; 263399, 4112013; 

263398, 4112017; 263390, 4112041; 

263390, 4112042; 263385, 4112054. 

(iii) Note: Map of Unit 2 (Map 7) follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 2006 / Proposed Rules 56093 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALSEP26se06.005</GPH>
56094 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

* * * * * 

Dated: September 19, 2006. 

David M. Verhey, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 06–8191 Filed 9–25–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AU77 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Prudency Determination 

for the Designation of Critical Habitat 

for Trichostema austromontanum ssp. 

compactum 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), have 

reconsidered whether designating 

critical habitat for Trichostema 

austromontanum ssp. compactum, a 

plant, is prudent. This taxon was listed 

as threatened under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), 

on September 14, 1998; at that time we 

determined that designation of critical 

habitat was not prudent because 

designation would increase the degree 

of threat to the taxon and would not 

benefit the taxon. As a consequence of 

a settlement agreement we are 

withdrawing our previous not prudent 

finding. Further, on the basis of our 

review and evaluation of the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available, we believe that designation of 

critical habitat continues to be not 

prudent for T. a. ssp. compactum. As a 

result, we are proposing a new ‘‘not 

prudent’’ determination for T. a. ssp. 

compactum. 

DATES: We will accept comments from 

all interested parties until November 27, 

2006. 

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment on 

the proposed finding, you may submit 

your comments and materials identified 

by RIN 1018–AU77, by any of the 

following methods: 

(1) E-mail: 

fw8cfwocomments@fws.gov. Include 

‘‘RIN 1018–AU77’’ in the subject line. 

(2) Fax: 760/431–9624. 

(3) Mail: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, 

Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 

Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA 

92011. 

(4) Hand Delivery/Courier: You may 

hand-deliver written documents to our 

office (see ADDRESSES). 

(5) Federal Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim 

Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish 

and Wildlife Office, telephone, 760/ 

431–9440; facsimile, 760/431–9624. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments Solicited 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this finding will be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, comments or suggestions 

from the public, other concerned 

governmental agencies, the scientific 

community, industry, or any other 

interested party concerning this 

proposed finding are hereby solicited. 

Comments particularly are sought 

concerning: 

(1) Reasons that designation of critical 

habitat may or may not be prudent for 

T. a. ssp. compactum; 

(2) Specific information on 

management activities for this taxon and 

how those activities do or do not 

address threats identified in the listing 

rule; 

(3) The possible risks and benefits of 

designating critical habitat for T. a. ssp. 

compactum; and 

(4) Ways in which we could improve 

or modify this finding to increase public 

participation and understanding. 

If you wish to comment, you may 

submit your comments and materials 

concerning this proposal by any one of 

several methods (see ADDRESSES

section). Please submit Internet 

comments to 

fw8cfwocomments@fws.gov in ASCII file 

format and avoid the use of special 

characters or any form of encryption. 

Please also include ‘‘Attn: RIN 1018–

AU77’’ in your e-mail subject header 

and your name and return address in 

the body of your message. If you do not 

receive a confirmation from the system 

that we have received your Internet 

message, contact us directly by calling 

our Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office at 

phone number (760) 431–9440. 

Our practice is to make comments, 

including names and home addresses of 

respondents, available for public review 

during regular business hours. 

Individual respondents may request that 

we withhold their names and/or home 

addresses, etc. but if you wish us to 

consider withholding this information 

you must state this prominently at the 

beginning of your comments. In 

addition, you must present rationale for 

withholding this information. This 

rationale must demonstrate that 

disclosure would constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. 

Unsupported assertions will not meet 

this burden. In the absence of 

exceptional, documentable 

circumstances, this information will be 

released. We will always make 

submissions from organizations or 

businesses, and from individuals 

identifying themselves as 

representatives of or officials of 

organizations or businesses, available 

for public inspection in their entirety. 

Comments and materials received will 

be available for public inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 

Office (see ADDRESSES). 

Background 

It is our intent to discuss only those 

topics directly relevant to the not 

prudent critical habitat determination. 

For more information on biology and 

ecology of Trichostema 

austromontanum ssp. compactum, refer 

to the final rule listing this taxon as 

threatened published in the Federal 

Register on September 14, 1998 (63 FR 

49006). 

Taxonomy and Description 

Trichostema austromontanum ssp. 

compactum, a member of the Lamiaceae 

(mint family), was described by F. 

Harlan Lewis (1945) based on 

specimens collected in 1941 by M. L. 

Hilend in Riverside County, California. 

The taxon occurs only on the 

northwestern margin of a single vernal 

pool (Bauder 1999, p. 13). T. a. ssp. 

compactum is a compact, soft-villous 

(with long, shaggy hairs) annual plant, 

approximately 4 inches (10 centimeters) 

tall, with short internodes (stem 

segments between leaves) (Lewis 1945, 

p. 284–386, Lewis 1993, p. 732), elliptic 

leaves, and blue flowers in a five-lobed 

corolla. The two stamens are blue. The 

fruit consists of four smooth, basally 

joined nutlets. This taxon flowers in 

July and August. 

Threats 

In the 1998 final listing rule, we 

stated that trampling and low numbers 

(small population size) threatened 

Trichostema austromontanum ssp. 

compactum (63 FR 49006). At the time 

of listing there were reports of on-going 

impacts caused by trampling associated 

with hikers and horses. It was observed 

that trampling by horses crushed plants 

and also created depressions that 

retained water where seeds and adult 

plants of T. a. ssp. compactum drown 

(Hamilton 1991, p 2, 22; Hamilton 

1996). Since listing, the California 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS